Mr. Tyler asked Mr. Gordon Walker what he thought about
British Guiana. Gordon Walker
replied that he knew Mr. Tyler
was thinking of an article which appeared in The
Reporter on February 13 which purported to represent Gordon Walkerʼs views. Since the
article had come out, he had been giving considerable thought as to what
he had really said to the man who had written the article. To the best
of his recollection, he had made the following points which, he
emphasized, were his own views which had not been fully checked out with
the Labor Party:

1.

It makes the Labor Party uncomfortable not to grant
independence to any country when the situation is ripe.

2.

He recognized the primacy of U.S. interests in British
Guiana.

3.

Labor believed there would be social revolutions in Latin
America. Some of these would be ugly ones which would not fit in
with the pattern of the Alliance for Progress. Some Nasser-type
governments would undoubtedly emerge.

4.

Labor would like to find a way to give independence to British
Guiana without affronting or injuring the U.S. Britain of course
cannot afford to appear as an agent of the U.S. The way in which
the Douglas-Home
government was trying to do this was completely unacceptable to
the people of British Guiana because it makes the entire country
into one constituency. Some other form of proportional
representation2 might well be considered by
Labor.

There was a discussion of the menace represented by Jagan. Mr. Tyler said we were seriously concerned with the way
Jagan conducted himself. We
could not live with a Castro-type government on the South American
continent. Mr. Gordon Walker
thought the U.S. exaggerated the menace of Jagan. There was a limit to what he could do, in view of
the racial division in British Guiana; for example, he could hardly have
complete control in a situation where the capital of the country was
against him.

Mr. Tyler added that we were
worried about the Castro aspects–that British Guiana would be used as a
base for subversion on the continent. Mr. Gordon Walker replied that a bit of this sort of thing
was bound to develop in Latin America. However, if a way could be found
for the U.S. to put its troops into British Guiana, the Labor Party
would not object. Britain did not want to keep its troops there
indefinitely. Britain had no real reason of its own to stay.
Furthermore, its troops were spread too thin. One battalion now in
British Guiana was not enough.

Source: National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 59, Central Files 1964–66, POL BR GU. Confidential. Drafted by
Thomas M. Judd, Officer-in-Charge of UK Affairs. The meeting was
held in Tylerʼs office. The
memorandum is part 2 of 2; part 1 was not found.↩

At a
Constitutional Conference in London in October 1963, the
major British Guiana party leaders asked British Colonial
Secretary Sandys to
devise a constitution, “since they were unable to agree
among themselves.” Sandys then decreed a new registration and
general election under proportional representation for a
single house legislature. “Jagan was furious at being outsmarted.”
(Memorandum from Cobb
to Rusk, September 15,
1965, Department of State, INR/IL Historical Files, British Guiana White
House Meetings)↩